In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
Heywood, the argument is always one of equality and liberty. If there no harm for consenting individuals to engage with each other in particular ways, why should there by prohibitions against it? In order to justify a prohibition those rallied against its permissibility should be prepared to stand and make credible arguments that actual harm will occur, and that the harm is sufficient to justify a prohibition.

When instead those who are rallied against say "it's unnatural", a reasonable and correct counter-argument is that it is natural - that it occurs in nature. However as you suggest, the complete argument is: You have failed to show these acts between consenting adults cause substantial harm.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
Hey A2, I just watched a "5 Stupid Things" video that touches on certain points I think you went through in your debate. I hope you like.




[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cheapthrillseaker's post
06-11-2013, 08:48 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 07:58 AM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  Hey A2, I just watched a "5 Stupid Things" video that touches on certain points I think you went through in your debate. I hope you like.




Steve Shives is one of my favorite YouTube personalities. Thumbsup

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-11-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  and Sucky Balls claims there is no free will......between the two of you any immoral act can be justified. The catholic priest who molested a child did not behave immorally because A)He had no free will and

Wrong again, Blowjob. That's not what I said.

In order to meet the THEOLOGIAL (moral) standard of "free will" a person (in YOUR system), has to have :
a. full knowledge
b. complete consent
"a" has been proven by Neuro-science to be false.

Since you (you told us once you were a Cat-o-lick as I recall), don't even know the first thing about your own cult's moral system, perhaps you could start with The-Catechism-For-Dummies.

Legal culpability, and moral culpability are entirely different matters.
Your analogy is 100 % false, but that's what you people need to do, since you are unable to make a coherent argument for EITHER moral or legal culpability with respect to this subject, thus you NEED to attempt to deflect the discussion to a topic which has no bearing here, nor is any way relevant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 01:36 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2013 01:42 PM by Heywood Jahblome.)
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 07:55 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Heywood, the argument is always one of equality and liberty. If there no harm for consenting individuals to engage with each other in particular ways, why should there by prohibitions against it? In order to justify a prohibition those rallied against its permissibility should be prepared to stand and make credible arguments that actual harm will occur, and that the harm is sufficient to justify a prohibition.

When instead those who are rallied against say "it's unnatural", a reasonable and correct counter-argument is that it is natural - that it occurs in nature. However as you suggest, the complete argument is: You have failed to show these acts between consenting adults cause substantial harm.

Countering with "it is natural - it occurs in nature", may make you feel better, but it is unpersuasive to someone who is using "natural" in a completely different way. In fact since you are using a completely different definition of "natural" then they used, in their eyes you look like a moron.

If you want, just say something like "I disagree with your claim that it is "unnatural" but so what if it is?.....Humans do lots of "unnatural" behavior that isn't immoral or a reasonable cause to discriminate. If you put hair spray in your hair this morning, you engaged in an "unnatural" behavior....is that cause to bar you from entering this classroom?....It is not enough to say something is "unnatural" and therefore I have cause to discriminate against you....yada...yada...yada"

Instead of knocking down a strawman you create by using a completely different definition of unnatural than you opponent used, knock down the weak argument your opponent actually makes using his defintions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 01:36 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 07:55 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Heywood, the argument is always one of equality and liberty. If there no harm for consenting individuals to engage with each other in particular ways, why should there by prohibitions against it? In order to justify a prohibition those rallied against its permissibility should be prepared to stand and make credible arguments that actual harm will occur, and that the harm is sufficient to justify a prohibition.

When instead those who are rallied against say "it's unnatural", a reasonable and correct counter-argument is that it is natural - that it occurs in nature. However as you suggest, the complete argument is: You have failed to show these acts between consenting adults cause substantial harm.

Countering with "it is natural - it occurs in nature", may make you feel better, but it is unpersuasive to someone who is using "natural" in a completely different way. In fact since you are using a completely different definition of "natural" then they used(your making a strawman), in their eyes you look like a moron.

If you want, just say something like "I disagree with your claim that it is "unnatural" but so what if it is?.....Humans do lots of "unnatural" behavior that isn't immoral or a reasonable cause to discriminate. If you put hair spray in your hair this morning, you engaged in an "unnatural" behavior....is that cause to bar you from entering this classroom?....It is not enough to say something is "unnatural" and therefore I have cause to discriminate against you....yada...yada...yada"

You do understand there are scientific definitions that do not necessarily mean the same as typical meanings?


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 01:45 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(06-11-2013 09:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-11-2013 02:13 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  and Sucky Balls claims there is no free will......between the two of you any immoral act can be justified. The catholic priest who molested a child did not behave immorally because A)He had no free will and

Wrong again, Blowjob. That's not what I said.

In order to meet the THEOLOGIAL (moral) standard of "free will" a person (in YOUR system), has to have :
a. full knowledge
b. complete consent
"a" has been proven by Neuro-science to be false.

Since you (you told us once you were a Cat-o-lick as I recall), don't even know the first thing about your own cult's moral system, perhaps you could start with The-Catechism-For-Dummies.

Legal culpability, and moral culpability are entirely different matters.
Your analogy is 100 % false, but that's what you people need to do, since you are unable to make a coherent argument for EITHER moral or legal culpability with respect to this subject, thus you NEED to attempt to deflect the discussion to a topic which has no bearing here, nor is any way relevant.

SuckBalls, I never said I was "Cat-o-lick".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 03:07 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
(04-11-2013 09:10 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  So, last Friday, World History was my first class of the day, and my teacher decided he would let us pick a topic to debate about. I suggested Government Discrimination Laws, but that was shot down, and somebody suggested Gay marriage.

Well, we split up into two groups, and out of fourteen people, I was one of the only four who supported Gay marriage.

So it was ten going against four, and I started listing off reasons as to why the government has no right denying same-sex marriage, since marriage is no longer a religious institution.

I think I handled myself well, I disapproved the "Its a choice" statement by telling them this:

"Alright, assuming we humans have free will according to the Catholic Church, we don't, but let's assume so for the sake of the argument. The Catholic Church teaches that humans, and humans alone have free will, I.e choice. Animals do not.

Scientists have observed over 1,500 different species of animals participating in homosexual behavior. So, if according to Catholics, only humans have free will, how are these animals CHOOSING to be homosexual?"

I thought it was a pretty convincing argument, but they merely brushed it aside saying that "We may not have science, but we have God, and he says that being gay, or participating in homosexual acts is sinful."

I retorted by asking them a simple question: "Where exactly does it say in the bible that Jesus condemned Homosexualiy? Nowhere. Where does it say in the bible? In Leviticus. You know what else is in Leviticus? That you shouldn't shave, or eat crawfish. And by the way, Jesus himself didn't follow the law, and neither do any of you. Condemnation of homosexuality is in the Old Testament, and so is having slaves and ritual sacrifices."

"But Steven," A really attractive Airhead begins, "You are an atheist, so you have no right to tell us what God said or thinks."

"I probably have read the bible more times than you, and I don't need to believe in a God to understand the sentences in the Bible."

I think it is a shame that they side tracked the discussion, and made it about me when I was simply arguing for free rights.

I don't know, was I wrong to openly criticize the Old Testament in this context?

Ah yes, biblical quotations don't count if you don't believe in ascribed deity.every god humanity has ever created is irrelevant.
And Law statues don't apply if you don't believe in the courts.

That whole "you can't talk about the bibal, you atheist!" thing is an obvious cop-out:they believe it so they should head it's instruction (and become some of the most evil of individuals as the bibal demands in the process) regardless of whether the reminder is coming from a filth godless heathen or the most pious and child-loving priest.

My response to her:

"You are an atheist, so you have no right to tell us what God said or thinks."

"I have all the right to say what is in that book; whether I believe it was written by some pig-ignorant primitive in Fuck-Knows-Where, Mesopotamia or by every god humanity has ever created is absolutely irrelevant: YOU claim to believe it, YOU should listen to what that monstrosity said whether it's me or the teacher saying it. You have two options; concede that you don't follow the bibal's commands or that you don't believe it. Or you can drop your claim that I can't read and we can continue."

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
I hate the 'Cause JESUS' argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2013, 04:58 PM
RE: In world history class, I got into a debate about Gay Marriage!
If they chose Old Testament laws, then they should have slaves and the US wouldn't have the right to say no, they should have women beaten when she stops a fight between two men and she accidentally touches head.

You either follow it all, or not at all.

Bury me with my guns on, so when I reach the other side - I can show him what it feels like to die.
Bury me with my guns on, so when I'm cast out of the sky, I can shoot the devil right between the eyes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: